Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...

[Beatrice23]

No: HPFGUIDX 161076

> Jeremiah:
> It's not about trust. the Secret Keeper can tell anyone they want.
It's a position based on trust but not dependent on it. So, if you
tole me "I'm hiding from the owners of Macy's. I'm at XYZ Court" and
I become the secret keeper. I can walk up and tell anyone I like
about it. But if I'm trusted, and I'm worthy of that trust, then I
will not tell Macy's. I will only tell those close to you.
>
> Wormtail betrayed the Potter's trust. This, however, is not a
condition of the magic. It has never been specified that it is a
condition of the magic.
>
> As far as posts saying "but Hagrid and Dumbledore and everyone else
knowing..." wouldn't it make sense that members of the Order would
have been told the Secret by Pettigrew? They were in on the Secret
and could do their business. Same with Sirius and possibly McGonagal.
But, Peter holds the Secret and if Harry was not told by Peter where
he lived then he may never know where to go.
>

Beatrice:

hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the
members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's
secret keeper, not Sirius?  Or would the Order members simply allow
Sirius to rot in Azkaban for 12 years while they celebrated
Voldemort's vanquishment?

And how do we know it isn't about trust?  It seems to me that being a
secret keeper is a sacred trust and a betrayal of that might (I am
saying might here) unravel the magic.  Take for instance the implied
bond that now may or may not (depending on your reading) exist
between Pettigrew and Harry.  Harry created that debt by sparing
Pettigrew's life...Lily created a debt by sacrificing her life for
Harry's...Why couldn't Peter's betrayal have a reverse effect?
Instead of creating a bond, it destroys one?
>